Youtube using robot to autoflag vids

[cowmuflage]

First thing we where told in Animation school in our copyright class was not to use copyrighted music unless we had permission from the content creator. Even if it's not something we are making money of off. Because that still is breaching copyright. It's always best to use non copyrighted music. I mean you ever wonder why when a cartoon or tv show shows up on another show/movie and it's always old looking? That's why!

It's something that used to be common sense but it's not nowadays.

[Lisaara]

But according to copyright law, if you're not making money off it or it's a review(freedom of speech), it's okay to use. If it wasn't, all those AMVs, WMVs, etc. would be completely illegal. Every machinima would be illegal but they're not. It's protected under the 'Right To Fair Use' section.

Also TB, AngryJoe, etc. has permission from companies and this is a ROBOT doing it. It's not a person looking at them. It's a blind blanket sweep and they're endangering people like TB whom make a living off of their vids(with company support, btw!). There's a very good reason why most of the gaming companies are sticking up for TB and the like rather than Google.

[Sukurachi]

But according to copyright law, if you're not making money off it or it's a review(freedom of speech), it's okay to use. If it wasn't, all those AMVs, WMVs, etc. would be completely illegal. Every machinima would be illegal but they're not. It's protected under the 'Right To Fair Use' section.

Also TB, AngryJoe, etc. has permission from companies and this is a ROBOT doing it. It's not a person looking at them. It's a blind blanket sweep and they're endangering people like TB whom make a living off of their vids(with company support, btw!). There's a very good reason why most of the gaming companies are sticking up for TB and the like rather than Google.

No, you are misreading the copyright act.
Regardless of whether you are making money or not off something, you must respect someone else's copyright.

The "fair use" clause is the single most misunderstood and misinterpreted section of the law regarding copyright of intellectual property.

You ignore section3:
"The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"

THAT is the section that makes reference to "fair use", and is intended to permit the use of quotes and excerpts within the context of third-party books and the use of examples in classrooms.

It does not mean that anyone can use an entire piece of copyrighted material freely, calling it "fair use", if they make no financial gain from it.

If the owner of a copyrighted property objects to its use in a machinima, then it is in effect illegal. If the copyright owner allows it that is another story. But you cannot blankly state that "machinimas are legal".

Again, the "fair use" clause is entirely misunderstood by most people. It does NOT allow you to freely use a major portion of a copyrighted property, regardless of financial gains or not.

[Sukurachi]

Let's be clear here:

there ARE two completely separate and distinct issues at play here:

1) creators of content who are using copyrighted material by permission.

2) creators of content who are using copyrighted material without permission.

The problem with YouTube's approach here is that they are attacking people in both categories indiscriminately. I am a staunch defender of copyright, due to the very nature of my work. But YouTube is casting too wide a net and treating both legal AND illegal users the same.

[Lisaara]

Let's be clear here:

there ARE two completely separate and distinct issues at play here:

1) creators of content who are using copyrighted material by permission.

2) creators of content who are using copyrighted material without permission.

The problem with YouTube's approach here is that they are attacking people in both categories indiscriminately. I am a staunch defender of copyright, due to the very nature of my work. But YouTube is casting too wide a net and treating both legal AND illegal users the same.

Funny thing is...they're attacking most those in Category 1, not Category 2.

[cowmuflage]

It's sad that people think it's alright to do what ever they want if they slap "fair use" onto it. If I made some content and saw someone using it to make money from it with out asking me I'd be very pissed. I would not care if it's their only way to make a living I'd shut them down.

[AdamSavage]

I guess you could say a video like this is a copyright violation, unless they have permission of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmK3AQ2Yozk

or even this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srXN-1DUd3Q

[Lisaara]

It's sad that people think it's alright to do what ever they want if they slap "fair use" onto it. If I made some content and saw someone using it to make money from it with out asking me I'd be very pissed. I would not care if it's their only way to make a living I'd shut them down.

If you look at what was said, TB and the others DO have permission, hence why the gaming companies are defending them instead of Google. :/

And for those who don't, most gaming companies don't CARE and have come out and said that cause it's free publicity. I highly recommend watching TB's vid since he breaks it down and even mentions why gaming companies don't care if people make youtube vids with their stuff in them. It's not theft or bad if the company doesn't care and likes the publicity and said person isn't claiming they made the game.

[cowmuflage]

It's sad that people think it's alright to do what ever they want if they slap "fair use" onto it. If I made some content and saw someone using it to make money from it with out asking me I'd be very pissed. I would not care if it's their only way to make a living I'd shut them down.

If you look at what was said, TB and the others DO have permission, hence why the gaming companies are defending them instead of Google. :/

And for those who don't, most gaming companies don't CARE and have come out and said that cause it's free publicity. I highly recommend watching TB's vid since he breaks it down and even mentions why gaming companies don't care if people make youtube vids with their stuff in them. It's not theft or bad if the company doesn't care and likes the publicity and said person isn't claiming they made the game.

Never said they did not

[Lisaara]

The way you worded it seemed to imply exactly that, thus my response.

[cowmuflage]

The way you worded it seemed to imply exactly that, thus my response.

I was talking about the people who seem to think saying "it's fair use" is a good excuse to break copyright laws when it's not. If you don't ask to use someones content and make money off it then the person who owns it has all rights to get your video shut down.

[Lisaara]

Added another video that explains things and a Youtube response.

[Castile]

Forgive my ignorance but aren't copyright laws different in every country? Something may be ok in one country but not another? Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[Sukurachi]

Forgive my ignorance but aren't copyright laws different in every country? Something may be ok in one country but not another? Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Other than Russia and China (where it's a free-for-all), copyright laws are more or less the same throughout the western world, with terms of copyright length being the only real differences.

For example, in one place it might be 50 years after the death of the author; in another 50 years after the actual work was created; in some it's 70 years; in some, additional years are added for every year the country was at war, etc...

Otherwise, the concept of Fair Use remains the same for all, and the basic principles are the same.

The biggest problems with existing copyright laws are in the United States, where large corporations are heavily lobbying government to give them additional powers to extend terms of coverage for works on which they own copyright. This has given us ridiculous extremes of copyright coverage where for example one artist's work, now owned by a major corporation, is still covered by copyright after more than 100 years.

There are legitimate concerns about protecting the rights of the creator of a work of art (or other intellectual property). But corporate greed has stepped in and actually taken much of that away from the creators and, in effect, made themselves the de facto holders of all copyright. This problem really took form when publishers started being bought up by large media conglomerates.

Speaking of something like World of Warcraft, it was designed by a team, who are employees of Blizzard, a corporation. In this case it is perfectly normal for the corporation to hold the rights to the work created by their employees.